Week Watch – 7 June

When the State fails our children

The recent case of an 11 year old child excluded from Paeroa Central School for violent and other anti-social behaviour has brought into stark consciousness the problem of dysfunctional, troubled, and/or special needs children in our education system.

On the one hand, these children – many of whom have been raised in dysfunctional households or have other problems – have a right to State funded support and education. They cannot be left to rot and grow into troubled adults moving in and out of the justice system.

On the other hand, children and staff at schools have a right to safety and a non-violent, undisturbed environment to learn and socialise.

Both rights are equally valid.

Having had some experience with a special needs child (see previous related blogpost: Once upon a time there was a solo-mum), who I’ll refer to as “Zack” (not his real name), I have seen how a mainstream school can have considerable difficulties in this area.

“Zack” is an intelligent, charming, highly curious, young man (12) who requires one-on-one support during his entire school day. Not having that one-on-one support is untenable for both “Zack” or the school, as he can “flip out” at provocations which other children might not notice.

“Zack” was expelled from two previous schools for lack of one-on-one support from a teacher-aid.

He was enrolled at his current school with the specific agreement that “Zack” would be provided full-time, one-on-one support from a dedicated teacher-aid.

It soon become apparent that the Ministery had assigned this teacher-aid (who was doing the best she could under the circumstances) to two children; “Zack”, and another child at another school.

Not being able to violate given laws of physics by being in two places simultaneously, the school took action to cut down “Zack’s” hours in class. He was permitted to attend class only when the teacher aid was present (approx 4 hours per day). When she left to attend her second client, “Zack’s” grandmother collected him. (“Zack’s” mother, “Sally”, is a solo-mum who works at an early childhood facility. Read her full story here: Once upon a time there was a solo-mum.)

Implementation of promises of full support – the current fashionable term is “intensive wraparound support” – by the Ministry of Education have been erratic and never fully implemented. (At the beginning the Ministry was reluctant to offer any support for “Zack”. They relented only when schools refused to accept him unless there was funding for a teacher-aid.)

Paeroa Central School was right to stand their ground.

Principal, Janet Jones, said,

“We can’t understand why the ministry would give us the directive to take him back and put him in the classroom of the teacher who was assaulted. There’s got to be other alternatives.”

The Ministry (or rather, this rotten government) had similar plans for Salisbury School, which also catered for children with special, high needs. Salisbury School, however would have none of it and recognised that the Ministry’s promises of “intensive wraparound support” was so much bullshit. (See previous related blogpost: Why Salisbury School was right to be wary of this government)

It was another principal, this time in Whangarei, who discovered the realities of “support” available from the Ministry,

A Whangarei school principal says a system designed to improve support for at-risk children appears to be bogged down in paperwork.

The Gateway programme began two years ago to co-ordinate the roles of Child, Youth and Family, doctors, schools and mental health services for children in care.

But Horahora primary school principal Pat Newman said from what he has seen, the gateway is blocked.

He said he has been trying since March to get an assessment for a young pupil with serious anger problems who hurts other children on a daily basis.

Mr Newman said various agencies have filed their observations about the boy and though he clearly needs specialist help, there has been no action. Now his classmates are afraid of him and have begun to exclude him.

Dominion Post – New depths in coded racism?

After the furore surrounding Nisbet’s racist cartoons in the Marlborough Express and The Press, Fairfax’s newspapers seem more circumspect at how they voice their casual racism.

Take this bit in the Dominion Post’s editorial on 7 June,

Nobody can argue with the restrictions for suburban bars, which are in residential areas where the right of people to get a good night’s sleep clearly outweighs the right of proprietors to open into the early hours of the morning. There might also be a case for shorter opening hours for bars in Newtown, which has been identified by the council as high risk because of its demographics and the number of patrons seeking hospital emergency department treatment.

What does “because of its demographics” mean?

Could it code for… people with non-white skin colour?

Could it mean… people who are different to the rest of us by being poorer? Browner? Non-white, non anglo-saxon, non-gentiles?

Because it’s highly ironic that the anonymous author of that comment then refers to “the number of patrons seeking hospital emergency department treatment”.

Really?

Really?!?!

Funny that. Because according to previous reports in the Dominion Post, it wasn’t Newtown that has been the real problem in terms of alcohol-fuelled harm;

It seems fairly obvious even to the most blind-drunk person that the real problem zone is not Newtown, but a few kilometres to the north, in Wellington’s boozy, brawling, bar-strip – Courtney Place.

But maybe the “demographics” aren’t as easily discernible in Courtney Place? And the voices of profitable booze-bar owners are more organised and louder in Courtney Place?

I wonder what the anonymous writer of that trashy editorial has to say on this?

Blogger’s shock discovery

The Blogger-Known-As-Jackal, may have uncovered something quite sinister in the stranding of the m.v. Rena in October 2011. Jackal writes,

“For over a year and a half now The Jackal has been attempting to learn exactly what was onboard the MV Rena when it ran aground near Tauranga on 5 October 2011. I was wanting this information to try and work out the potential environmental impact, but unfortunately my efforts have been in vain.

On 10 October 2011, I made a formal request under the Official Information Act (PDF) to Maritime New Zealand for information relating to what the MV Rena was carrying, which they declined. I then approached the Ombudsman about that lack of disclosure.

Check out his blogpost, and look at the picture that Jackal posts. His assessment of the situation seems to be on the ball: the Rena was carrying yellow-cake uranium.

And now it’s lying on the sea bed and shoreline of our east coast.

United Future – The Party you have when you’re not having a Party…

This week it was revealed that Peter Dunne’s “party”, United Future, did not have the required 500 signed up members.

Up till now, United Future has been receiving taxpayer funding, which all registered Parties are elegible to receive. Under parliamentary rules, Party leaders are entitled to receive an extra $100,000 to fund the leader’s office.

Winston Peters challenged this funding, pointing out that if United Future did not exist as a registered entity, therefore it could not receive Party funding.

The Speaker of the House – a National MP, but supposedly a “neutral arbiter” in such matters – made a surprising determination that United Future was still eligible for Party funding.

So, despite being de-registered by the Electoral Commission, it is still being paid taxpayer money?

Opposition Parties being mostly powerless, resorted to one of the few actions possible to display their opposition; Peters led a walk-out of NZ First MPs from the Debating Chamber.

“The Speaker is the sole determinant of how the rules are applied. They’re being really childish over this.”

That may be. But sometimes making a point requires that “children’s games” are played.

Just like on 4 September 2003, when National MP, Shane Ardern, rode a tractor up Parliament’s steps during farmer protest against a proposed flatulence tax (see: MP runs into strife on tractor),

.

.

As reported by the NZ Herald at the time,

National leader Bill English, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, Act rural affairs spokesman Gerry Eckhoff and United Future leader Peter Dunne all voiced their opposition to the tax at the rally.

“Game-playing by children”: best done by National MPs with big, smoke-belching, noisy machines.

Interesting though, isn’t it, how this government can break rules and laws when it suits their purposes.

Like this…

Simon Bridges – Soft on Crime?

On 6 June, Minister of Labour Simon Bridges announced that Labour Inspectors would no longer be targetting retailers who unlawfully opened their doors to trade on Easter (see: Garden shop welcomes relaxed Easter laws).

Bridges said,

“Where there are complaints they will be followed up, there will still be prosecutions but it won’t be as proactive as it has been previously.”

Evidently, according to the Minister of Labour, “his department is moving away from enforcing shopping laws to clamping down on the abuse of migrant workers“.

Yeah, right. Of course they will.

This wouldn’t have anything to do with a failed Bill in Parliament, in 2010, to liberalise Easter trading laws, would it? This Bill, promoted by Rotorua MP Todd McClay, and supported by Simon Bridges, was voted down in Parliament.

“I supported that because I think it is really inconsistent that the likes of Parnell, Taupo and Queenstown can open on Easter Sunday at the moment but Rotorua and Mount Maunganui, which are certainly frequented by many tourists, can’t.”

However, Mr Bridges said he would not support retailers opening on Good Friday.

“I’m personally in favour of some liberalisation of the law so that there can be more business made by retailers on Easter Sunday but I won’t go the whole hog,” he said.

So the Bill which Bridges supported was voted down by Parliament. But now, Bridges is permitting illegal Easter trading through the “back door”, by withdrawing Labour Inspectors who visit law-breaking retailers, to issue infringment notices?

Is that how National ministers deal with inconvenient laws?

Is this how National demonstrates it’s “tough on crime” attitude?

.

.

Darren Odering, of Orderings Garden Centres says,

“Personally I think its a stupid law. Nobody suffers. I think they’re doing that now anyway. They go to some of our stores and not others.”

The same could be said of this country’s marijuana laws: “its a stupid law. Nobody suffers”. And yet successive governments spends millions in busting pot smokers and imprisoning them.

As I blogged last year on this issue;

Is it a “victimless crime”, as garden centre owner, Darryn Odering insists?

Or is this a a case of businesses manipulating ill-informed public opinion; selfish attitudes; and exploiting their advantage as a minority of law-defying businesses, trading when their competitors are closed?

Oderings is open during Easter because it is hugely profitable.

Why is is hugely profitable?

Because it’s a public holiday.

Would it be hugely profitable if every single business was open on Easter Friday? Including schools, government departments, etc? In fact, if Easter Friday and Easter Monday was no different to any other day of the week – how profitable would it be for law-breakers like Oderings?

The answer, of course, is that it wouldn’t. It would simply be another business day. Let’s be clear here;

Oderings would not have those huge profits if it Easter Friday (and Monday) was another normal trading day.

So people would be at work .

So if the law is to be changed, let’s do it fairly and apply it across the board throughout the country: everything opens and everyone (with a job) works. Not just the captive retail assistants and fast food workers. Everyone.

And this is where the rubber hits the road. Do we, as a country, want to give up a holiday so we can all work like any other day?

And if we’re all working – how will that benefit us and retail outlets?

The answer is; it doesn’t benefit us. We get another day that shops are open and we’re all working. Oh whoopty f****n doo. What the hell did we just gain/lose?!?!

To all elected representatives, I offer this advice;

If we’re serious about keeping our holidays, then it’s time that the $1,000 fine was increased to a more meaningful amount. $25,000 seems a nice figure. The current penalty of $1,000 is meaningless. It’d be like sentencing a drug pusher to community service. Both are supposedly “victimless” crimes, after all.

If we’re going to allow Oderings to open on Easter – then make it a blanket law, across the country. Everyone opens; everyone works. That includes schools, banks, local bodies, government departments, Parliament, etc, on Easter Friday and Easter Monday. No one takes time off.

Simon Bridges on democratic protests

Simon Bridges announced earlier this year that sea-going protestors who oppose deep sea drilling, will face harsher penalties, and may face interception and arrest by our military.

The revised law includes interfering with or damaging structures, ships, equipment, operations or activities in the zone and could incur fines of up to $100,000 and up to two years’ imprisonment. (see: Prominent NZers fight environmental protest ban)

Interesting to see now National ministers can be “tough on crime” when it comes to dissenters protesting against perceived threats to our envioronment – but not-so-tough on crime when it comes to commercial retailers deliberately flouting the law, purely for personal profit-making.

Dunne resigns as Government Minister!!

After Dunne – What about John Banks?

On 29 April 2012, Dear Leader Key said this about John Banks and the Skycity and Kim Dotcom “anonymous” donations,

“I’ve sought an assurance from Mr Banks that he complied with local government law. He’s given me that assurance. I accept him at his word. If people don’t believe that they are free to test that with the police.”

After the Police completed their investigation into the donations scandal, on 5 July 2012, it became apparent that John Banks had lied about the donations being “anonymous”. In fact, he knew damn well where they had originated from. Banks had made a full disclosure to the Police.

On 17 September 17 2012, Key stated categorically that he would not sack Banks after these new revelations,

“He’s got a version of events, others have got a different version. It’s not for me to forensically go through that. But I accept if he says to me, which he has, ‘look I didn’t know’ then I accept that. Look there is not court case against the guy.”

“He’s told me categorically that he didn’t leak the report. I want to believe him but the problem is unfortunately the inquiry doesn’t rule him out and I can’t dismiss the possibility that he has because of the information contained in the report.”